The European Union (EU) has announced a new $108 billion (about €100 billion) investment plan to speed up the production and use of cleaner fuels for aviation and shipping. The plan, called the Sustainable Transport Investment Plan or STIP, will run until 2035.
It is one of the largest efforts in Europe to cut emissions from two of the hardest sectors to decarbonize—aviation and maritime transport. The EU hopes the program will help meet its climate targets and strengthen Europe’s leadership in clean energy technology.
The plan aims to boost the economy. It will create jobs, attract private investors, and build new industries centered on sustainable fuels.
Why Planes and Ships Should Go Green
Airplanes and ships play a vital role in global trade and travel. However, they release a lot of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The aviation sector alone is responsible for about 3% of global emissions, and that number is rising as air travel grows.
Unlike cars or trains, airplanes and large ships cannot easily switch to battery power. That is why sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) and synthetic e-fuels are key to cutting emissions in these sectors. These fuels can be made from renewable sources such as used cooking oil, waste, or captured carbon, and can often be used in existing engines.
However, cleaner fuels are still much more expensive to produce than traditional jet fuel. The new EU plan aims to close this price gap by providing investment support, policy certainty, and funding for research and infrastructure.

Key Goals of the $108B Investment Plan
The Sustainable Transport Investment Plan brings together funding, regulation, and private partnerships to scale up clean fuel production across Europe. Its main targets include:
- 20 million tonnes of sustainable fuels will be produced each year by 2035.
- Around 13 million tonnes of biofuels and 7 million tonnes of e-fuels.
- Deployment of clean fuel technology in both aviation and maritime transport.
- Greater energy independence and industrial competitiveness for Europe.
The EU expects to mobilize at least €2.9 billion by 2027 as a first step. Part of the money will come from existing EU programs such as InvestEU, the European Hydrogen Bank, the Innovation Fund, and Horizon Europe. These programs will help finance new fuel plants, research projects, and pilot facilities.
For example, more than €300 million will support hydrogen-based fuels for planes and ships. €150 million will support synthetic fuel projects. Additionally, €130 million will fund research on new clean fuel technologies.

The plan promotes partnerships among governments, energy companies, and airlines. This helps ensure that supply and demand increase together.
Building a Market for Sustainable Aviation Fuels
Today, sustainable aviation fuels make up less than 1% of Europe’s total jet fuel supply. The new investment plan aims to change that by building a large and stable market for cleaner fuels.
Under new EU rules, ReFuelEU Aviation and FuelEU Maritime, airlines and shipping companies must slowly boost their use of renewable fuels. The rules require at least 2% SAF by 2025, 6% by 2030, and 70% by 2050 for aviation.

To meet these targets, Europe needs dozens of new refineries and production plants. The investment plan offers developers more financial certainty. This should help attract private capital. Many companies have been hesitant to invest in SAF plants because of high costs and uncertain returns.
By combining regulation with financial incentives, the EU hopes to lower these risks and attract long-term investors.
The plan also promotes the creation of fuel offtake agreements, where airlines commit to buying a set amount of SAF each year. This helps producers secure financing, knowing there will be demand for their product once it is ready.
Experts expect global production of SAF to rise substantially by 2030. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) says that in a “high +” policy scenario, production might hit about 16.97 million tonnes by 2030. This would meet around 5% of the expected aviation fuel demand.
Other reports suggest figures such as 6.1 to 8.2 billion gallons (~23–31 million tonnes) by 2030 based on announced projects and capacity. Most analyses say that, despite this growth, the industry needs more support. This includes policy help, feedstock expansion, and better technology. These steps are crucial to meet even modest blend targets.

Economic and Environmental Impact
The EU estimates that scaling up SAF and e-fuels could create tens of thousands of new jobs across Europe. These jobs would come from building new plants, upgrading infrastructure, and managing supply chains for renewable fuels.
Economic benefits also include:
- More investment in rural areas where biofuel feedstocks are grown.
- Strengthened local industries producing renewable hydrogen and carbon-capture systems.
- Reduced dependence on imported oil and gas.
Sustainable aviation fuels can cut lifecycle carbon emissions by 70–90%. This reduction depends on how they are made, compared to fossil-based jet fuel. E-fuels made from green hydrogen and captured carbon can potentially be near-zero emission.
If Europe achieves its production targets, the total fuel savings could cut up to 200 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2035. That would be a major step toward meeting the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality goal.
What are the Challenges to Overcome?
While the EU plan is ambitious, experts warn that several obstacles remain, including:
- Feedstock supply: Europe needs to secure enough sustainable raw materials, like waste oils and residues. This must happen without harming food production or ecosystems.
- Cost gap: SAFs currently cost 2x to 5x times more than traditional jet fuel. Subsidies and long-term contracts will be needed to make them affordable for airlines.
- Infrastructure: Airports and ports will need to upgrade storage and refueling systems to handle new fuel types safely.
- Permitting and construction: Building new fuel plants can take years, and delays in approvals could slow progress.
- Global competition: The U.S. and Asia are also investing heavily in clean-fuel production. Europe must remain competitive while keeping its sustainability standards high.
Despite these challenges, many in the aviation industry see the plan as a turning point. Airlines, manufacturers, and energy companies are working together to pilot new fuel technologies and increase production capacity.
Next Steps for Cleaner Skies
Over the next two years, the EU will focus on building early projects and securing private investment. The first wave of large-scale SAF facilities could begin operations by 2027.
The European Commission will also monitor fuel availability, costs, and emissions reductions. Annual progress reports will help track whether Europe is on pace to meet its 2030 and 2035 milestones.
If successful, the plan could become a model for other regions looking to decarbonize aviation. Similar programs are under discussion in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. As the world races toward net zero, the success of this plan could help define how fast aviation and shipping can truly go green.
The post Europe Unveils $108B Clean Fuel Plan to Decarbonize Aviation and Shipping by 2035 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

